Effect of the concentration of circulating prolactin on dairy cows' responsiveness to domperidone injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether the responsiveness of the mammary gland to prolactin (PRL) is affected by the concentration of the hormone. After 1 pre-experimental week (d -7 to -1), 18 Holstein cows in mid to late lactation were injected intramuscularly twice daily with either 0.5 mg of quinagolide (QN) or 2 mL of water (control) for 2 wk (d 1 to 14; treatment period). After the treatment period, all cows received daily subcutaneous injections of 300 mg of domperidone (DOMP) for 3 wk (d 15 to 35; DOMP period). The cows were monitored for an additional 2 wk as a posttreatment period (d 36 to 49). Blood and milk samples were collected 3 times per week. Additionally, blood samples were collected during the a.m. milking on d -4, 14, and 35. Milk production was not affected by QN during the treatment period but was increased during the DOMP and posttreatment periods in the QN cows. With respect to milk composition, the treatments affected only the protein content, which was greater in the QN cows during the treatment period. Blood PRL concentration declined during QN injections and was lower in the QN cows than in the control cows between d 5 and 14. The basal concentration of PRL was increased by DOMP injections during the DOMP and posttreatment periods but was not affected by previous QN injections. Prolactin concentration in milk was not affected by the QN treatments but was increased by DOMP injections during the DOMP and posttreatment periods. Milking-induced PRL release was decreased by QN on d 14. On d 35, milking did not induce a significant release of PRL above the baseline for both treatments. In conclusion, the results of this experiment support the contention that the mammary gland's responsiveness to PRL is modulated by the previous level of the hormone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".